A place for a tired old woman to try to figure things out so that the world makes a bit of sense.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

It's About Damn Times

Finally, the NY Times has decided to admit that President Bush and his administration lied us into a war. Of course, they do it obliquely in this editorial, which is as much a slam on the Washington Post (which, by the way, is never mentioned) as the Pentagon (which is mentioned). The putative subject of this editorial is the misguided "We Support You Walk for Freedom" planned for 9/11/05 as a sort of memorial to those who died in that terrorist attack and a sort of showing of support for those serving in Iraq. The Times is right to show the speciousness of the linkage.

The Bush administration has announced plans for a Freedom Walk on Sept. 11, which will start at the Pentagon and end at the National Mall, and include a country music concert. The event is an ill-considered attempt to link the Iraq war to the terrorist attacks of 2001, and misguided in almost every conceivable way. It also badly misreads the public's mood. The American people are becoming increasingly skeptical about the war. They want answers to hard questions, not pageantry.

What is fascinating is that the editorialist manages later in the piece to thrash the White House for its mendacity in building support for the war in Iraq to begin with.

Having failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the administration has been eager to repackage the war as a response to Sept. 11. The Freedom Walk appears to be devised to impress this false connection on the popular imagination.

The Bush administration took the nation to war on the basis of a bundle of ever-changing arguments, few of which stood up once the fighting began. Ever since, the White House has tried to shore up its positions by discounting all bad news and shielding the civilian public from any war-connected inconvenience. But that strategy has very clearly stopped working. It is time for a somber acceptance of the war's costs, and some specific talk about what the nation's goals and strategy are in Iraq. [Emphasis added]

The NY Times is late to the dance. It would have been far more helpful if they had not been part of the media cheerleading squad back in 2002 and 2003 for the A-team's push for this ill-conceived and ill-managed invasion. The Times, like most other media outlets bear part of the responsibility for this debacle. While I don't expect an apology, I am somewhat cheered that the Times is beginning to remove its journalistic head from its nether parts.